Prahlad Kumar Pal vs Anjana Pal and Ramchandra Pal

The appeal has been preferred after a delay of 411 days, that too in a matter where decree for dissolution of marriage has been granted by the trial court on 20.12.2008 and the Appellant''s plea is that he could not prefer the appeal as he had no knowledge of the impugned decree and also he had no sufficient fund.

The plea that the Appellant had no knowledge of the decree is factually wrong and legally cannot be sustained because of the reason that it was the Appellant''s own suit which was decreed and not an ex-parte decree. It is clear from the provisions of the CPC itself that the knowledge of decree is to be taken from the date when decree is passed in a matter where the parties are represented by counsel.

So far as the Appellant had no money is concerned, this contention is also liable to be rejected merely on the ground that nominal court fees is required for preferring an appeal and there is a finding of the trial court that the Appellant has capacity and he has built house also.

Not only this decree has been granted for divorce in favour of the Appellant, a permanent alimony of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been ordered in addition to the monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- and that was granted on the ground that the Appellant himself stated that he has already paid the amount of permanent alimony of Rs. 1,05,000/- which he failed to prove.

In view of the above, we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal and the application for condonation of delay is rejected and consequently the appeal is dismissed.